I pose the argument that the olympic spirit is dead, I am for this. The definition of the olympic spirt can be broadly interpreted, so ill use this website as a baseline for what I interpret the olympic spirit to be.

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. I am a huge fan of the Olympics and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it.

::The Basics::

The debate has been very broadly defined at this point, so I will take this opportunity to clarify. Olympic spirit is indeed a poorly defined term and exists more as a loose assembly of ideals than a firm construct. For the sake of this debate, I would like to define the Olympic spirit as the following:

- Olympic Spirit: an expression of sportsmanship, international unity, and effort through competitive athleticism and spectator support.

I draw the main facets of this definition from both my opponent's initial example and the Olympic creed [1], which emphasizes struggle and participation over success. That said, I will argue that the Olympic spirit is not dead. Pro has not offered any contentions yet, so I'll start with a few brief arguments against the resolution.

1. Vast International Participation

The Olympics remain the largest regular meeting of international representatives in the world, housing more countries than even the UN. For example, the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing saw 204 countries participate, three of which for the first time [2]. The scope of this event allows athletes from warring or internationally unfriendly countries to meet, socialize, and compete alongside one another. Without a doubt, the Olympics are the most unifying experience our world has to offer.

2. Athletic Effort

Over ten thousand athletes participated in the 2008 games [3], eventually earnings medals for 81 countries (6 for the first time) [4]. The sheer number of participants involved, as well as their determination to compete for a vast range of homelands, perfectly captures the vitality of the Olympic spirit.

::Closing::

Though brief, my arguments have already demonstrated that the international harmony and athletic vigor that is the Olympic spirit is alive and well. Thus, my opponent's burden is a large one; Pro must now demonstrate that these and future arguments are not examples of Olympic spirit or that future games will not display such qualities.

My Opponent has put forward some convincing arguments on what the olympics displays.

No one can argue that the Olympics is an event which displays vast International participation, and that its an event which shows fantastic athletic effort, however as my opponent says "Pro must now demonstrate that these and future arguments are not examples of Olympic spirit" I will do just that. Remember we are not talking about the Olympics being dead, but rather the essential spirit of it

According to the Olympic Creed, the most important thing is not to win but to take part. But has all the money and the level of exposure killed the Olympic spirit? Are the modern games about sportsmanship and glory or about the pursuit of profit? And not just profit but political message?

For example How can we pretend that all competitors have a fair chance of winning a medal when it is now all about which national team has the biggest sponsorship deals and the best facilities to train in? True the message is about taking part not winning, But the idea of athletics itself is put into question when the finance has such an impact on the outcome. The impact of money goes even deeper into the Olympics however, the olympic bid itself is put into question. A BBC documentary entitled Panorama: Buying the Games, investigated the taking of bribes in the bidding process for the 2012 Summer Olympics. The documentary claimed it was possible to bribe IOC members into voting for a particular candidate city.

In any other athletics competition this would be pretty bad, but for the Olympics an event that shouts out freedom, fairness, equality its simply dreadful. Its hypocrisy proves that its spirit is dead.

In fact history shows that the Olympic spirit died long ago, for me the Olympic spirit died on September 5, 1972 in Munich when the decision was taken by Avery Brundage, the then IOC president, to carry on with the Games after 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered. The international temptation to use the Olympics as an event to demonstrate at, to boycott, to demonstrate terrorism in has tainted the entire image of the Olympics irreparably, and therefore its spirit died too.

Before I address my opponent's arguments, I must point out the failings of his current position. Given that Olympic spirit entails expressions of sportsmanship, unity, and effort through athleticism, Pro must prove that these aspects are no longer present whatsoever within the Olympic games. Because my opponent has conceded that the Olympics remain a hub of each of these elements, the resolution is negated. At this point, I address Pro's arguments only out of courtesy.

::Rebuttals::

"How can we pretend that all competitors have a fair chance of winning a medal when it is now all about which national team has the biggest sponsorship deals…"

My opponent's point is both misleading (numerous under-sponsored countries won medals for the first time in 2008 [1][2]) and counter-productive to his position. Based on finances alone, only a small group of participating countries in the Olympics can be considered serious medal contenders. The fact that 204 countries still competed in the recent summer games is a perfect example of how international contribution and individual athletic effort still play an important part in the Olympic games.

"The documentary claimed it was possible to bribe IOC members into voting for a particular candidate city."

The possibility of shady dealings being involved in Olympic planning does nothing to eliminate the spirit of the games. According to the agreed upon definition, Olympic spirit is expressed through the athletes, not the organizers. While political and financial trickery may blemish the image of various committees and countries, it does nothing to expunge the spirit of effort and unity found within the actual competitors.

"The international temptation to use the Olympics as an event to demonstrate at, to boycott, to demonstrate terrorism in has tainted the entire image of the Olympics irreparably…"

The political dealings of Olympic organizations may seem to contradict or even overshadow the atmosphere of the games, but they have not been shown to completely eliminate its spirit. My opponent and I agree that the games remain the world's largest display of international communion and sportsmanship, a fact that proves its spirit exists in spite of various controversies.

::Closing::

Pro argues that the Olympics have been tainted by political and financial influences. Regardless of the validity of these claims, they do little to satisfy the resolution. I have shown, and Pro agrees, that tremendous global participation, athletic cooperation, and individual effort remain prominent elements of Olympic competition. Given that these elements meet the requirements of Olympic spirit and my opponent has done nothing to show that they do not, the resolution is negated.

The key difference in my opponents and my argument is the interpretation of the Olympic spirit. My Opponents view of the Olympic spirit is athletics and sportsmanship, and the international unity achieved through these mediums

My interpretation is the idea that the Olympics as a whole event is what creates unity, while the athletics is simply the focal point of the event itself. I feel its wrong to think that the spirit of the olympics comes from within the athletics alone, becuase then the olympics would be no different (albeit larger) than the world championships for example, an event that struggles to hold a candle to the the torch that is the Olympics.

And it is through this interpretation of the olympic spirit that you can truly see how it has died.

I mentioned in my last argument Munich. Well this is but one event which has blighted the Olympics. Last years Olympics was used as a medium to show the struggles of the Tibetans against their Chinese oppressors, and though I strongly believe their struggles should be heard, it just goes to show that the Olympics is seen nowadays more of an event to demonstrate oppression rather than unity.

The fact that such a vast amount of money needs to be spent on the Olympics, further demonstrates that the veil of a unifying sporting event is a sham. And that barely hidden agendas run writhe through the veins of the Olympics, Chinas fantastic ceremony at the start of the 2008 games was seen not just as a fantastic show but an image which proved the decline of the west. Olympics held in America and Russia during the cold war were boycotted be either side, using the Olympics again as a medium to prove a political point, undermining the entire unifying ideology that the Olympics is supposed to support.

True the athletics is spectacular, true the Olympics is spectacular, but the Olympics is supposed to be more than just an athletic event, and for an event to have an ideology's that so fundamentaly clashes with reality is proof that something very very wrong has happened.

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate, in case you want to know I have exactly 3 minutes and 10 seconds to finish writing, which I have just done!

I thank Nik for a fun debate and his patience as I obtained a bootlegged Microsoft Word.

I must again preface my rebuttals with a clarification. Pro has offered a new, vague definition of Olympic spirit as the "whole event." Not only does the timing and ambiguity of this meaning demand it be summarily dismissed, it does nothing to further his case. The event as a whole, as well as its athletics, obviously continues to thrive.

Olympic spirit refers to an expression of sportsmanship, international unity, and effort through competitive athleticism and spectator support. As my opponent has conceded that these elements continue to take place, the resolution is negated.

::Rebuttals::

"I feel its wrong to think that the spirit of the olympics comes from within the athletics alone, becuase then the olympics would be no different (albeit larger) than the world championships…"

Pro makes no attempt to explain why the Olympics should be viewed in some specialized light. If it must, are its size, history, and popularity not sufficient in setting it apart? He alludes to some additional element that embodies the Olympic spirit but falls short of actually explaining it. As such, this point can be dismissed.

"[T]he Olympics is seen nowadays more of an event to demonstrate oppression rather than unity."

Pro fails to offer any evidence for his claims besides his own musings. Who views the Olympics in this light and to what extent? More importantly, what does external political protesting have to do with effort and unity through competitive sports? If complete international harmony among athletes, spectators, and organizers was a requirement of Olympic spirit, Pro's point would stand. As it is not, this argument is irrelevant.

My opponent goes on to mention money and international maneuvering as fatal to the Olympic spirit. As with his previous contentions, these points fail from a lack of clarity, evidence, and relevance to the definition of Olympic spirit agreed upon within this debate.

::Conclusion::

Pro does well to show the Olympics are far from perfect; protests and political posturing remain a part of the games' history. Unfortunately for his position, purity, faultlessness, and harmony among non-participants are not necessities of Olympic spirit. The fact that the event remains the world's largest and most popular demonstration of international sportsmanship, effort, and unity successfully refutes the resolution.

Can the Olympic spirit be overshadowed by outside events? Perhaps. Is it dead? Not by a long shot. Thank you for reading, and hope you'll vote Con!

Lol, no problem maikuru! I must of done something wrong becuase you beat me bad! Well done anyway, the best man won! But I still believe that the Olympic spirit is dead! I should know The next Olympics is in my home town! and the destroyed my cousins house to build the new stadium. :P

C: Tie - No violations.
S & G: Tie - Pro had his share of errors, but I tend to keep this category tied unless there are major violations.
A: Con - Pro suffered from a lack of clarity throughout the debate. Providing a specific definition and defending his position with evidence and consistent claims were needed.
S: Con - Numerous sources were used to strengthen individual arguments.